Mumbai Court June 2016 Judgments
Bharatkumar S. Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned Counsel appearing for the second Respondent. This Application was argued yesterday. To enable the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant to make further submissions, the Application was kept back till the afternoon session yesterday. On the request made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we again granted time till today. We have heard further submissions. 2. The prayer in this Application is for quashing the criminal case on the basis of the First Information Report registered at the instance of the second Respondent for the offence punishable under section 377 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. It is not in dispute that on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed by the police for various offences including the offence punishable under section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also not in dispute that the present Applicant filed Cri...
Tag this Judgment!Anwar Hajee Alimohammed Hajee Cassum Agboatwala (Since deceased) Throu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
1. By this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the entire acquisition proceeding of their lands bearing Survey Nos.321 and 322 (part) totally admeasuring approximately 12 acres located in village Dahisar, Mumbai and further seeking consequential relief of directing respondent Nos.1 to 7 to hand over possession of the said lands thereby taking necessary steps to delete the reservation of the lands for Remote Receiving Station. 2. Brief facts of the petition as are necessary for deciding the same can be stated as follows: Late Shri Hajee Alimohammed Hajee Cassum Agboatwala was the original owner of several immovable properties, including the subject lands bearing Survey Nos.321 and 322 (part), situated at Dahisar, admeasuring about 12 acres. He died on 07.11.1946, leaving behind him his widow, who filed Suit No. 3415 of 1947 in this Court for administration of th...
Tag this Judgment!Deccan Education Society and Others Vs. Leena Ravindra Kakrambe and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Pune/ Shivaji University and College Tribunal, Shivaji University, Kolhapur dated 6th June, 2002 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 and directing the petitioners to issue an order of reinstatement to the respondent no.1 and to pay her all the arrears of back-wages by fixing her salary after considering the due increment by treating her a permanent full time lecturer in the subject of Statistics from the academic year 1992 as per the rules. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. The petitioner no.1 runs Willingdon College, Sangli and Chintamanrao College of Commerce, Sangli. It was the case of the respondent no.1 that she was holding M.Sc.degree in Statistics. During the period between 21st August, 1989 and 31st October, 1989, the respondent no.1 was appointed in the Willi...
Tag this Judgment!Prashant Kashinath Zaware Vs. Rubal Gupta (Agrawal) and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
Per Court 1. The Applicant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21.10.2013 delivered by the learned Additional Session Judge, Ahmednagar by which Criminal Revision Application No.119 of 2013 has been partly allowed. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) has been interfered into by the Revisional Court to the extent of accused Nos.7 to 9 who are Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 before the Revisional Court, on the misconception that a sanction for prosecuting the said accused under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was mandated even at the pre-investigation stage. 3. I have heard the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the respondents. With their assistance, I have gone through the petition paper book. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anil Kumar and other Vs. M.K. Aiyappa and another, (2013) 10 SCC 705 has concluded that sanction under Section 19(1) of the Prev...
Tag this Judgment!Sharda Jayakumar Vs. Ravikant Sharma and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners herein happen to be accused in C.C.Nos.3603 of 2011 and 3604 of 2011. which were decided by the 5th Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thane, vide judgment and order dated 17th May, 2014. The petitioners herein are convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and are sentenced to two months of simple imprisonment and Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.4,50,000/- respectively towards fine/compensation. 3. At the stage of final hearing of the appeal i.e. on 10.2.2016, the petitioners filed an application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the matter be remanded for recording of further evidence in the matter. 4. The contents of the application in paras 6 and 7 run as follows :- "6) During the course of trial the Accused could not trace these very important documents and pleadings of parties which go to the root of the entire c...
Tag this Judgment!CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. Vs. Serji Transformer Explosion Prev ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
GENERAL 1. These are four Notices of Motion under Order 39 Rule 2A and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC ). All are filed by the Plaintiff ( CTR ), alleging that the Defendant ( Sergi ) is in repeated and contumacious breach of restraint orders passed in CTR s patent infringement suit. This common judgment disposes of all four Notices of Motion. 2. I heard Mr. Seervai for CTR and Mr. Chagla for Sergi at some length. They took me through this record; no easy task, I might add, for not only do the Notices of Motion overlap, but they are also tied hand and foot to, and share a history with, CTR s principal Notice of Motion No. 497 of 2014 for injunctive relief. That Notice of Motion is now separated from this group, since I decided it by a judgment dated 23rd October 2015. There, I held for CTR and against Sergi on the issue of infringement of CTR s patent, one that relates to an explosion and fire detection technology for use in electrical transformers. Sergi is in appeal. It...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The appellant is questioning his conviction and consequent sentence imposed upon him by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha dated 19.09.2013 in Sessions Trial No.6/2012 by which he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and is directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC and on that count, is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month, the appellant is before this Court. 2. We have heard Mr. R.M. Daga, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. T.A. Mirza, learned A.P.P. for the State. Both of them took us through in detailed, notes of evidence and record and proceedings of the sessions trial. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the present case is based on the c...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Incharge Police Inspecto ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. This matter was heard at length on 15.6.2016 and 16.6.2016. On 16.6.2016, this Court has passed the following order:- 1. The order of issuance of process of the learned Magistrate is on the basis of taking cognizance of a complaint u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. by invoking its powers u/s 190(1)(a). By the impugned judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule dated 01/08/2015, the order of the learned Magistrate dated 21/08/2014 has been quashed and set aside primarily on the ground that Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. was not complied with as there was no recording of verification of the complainant. 2. In this backdrop, it is necessary to peruse the record. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that he would apply for a certified copy of the verification of the petitioner as has been recorded by the lear...
Tag this Judgment!Dayanand L. Naik and Another Vs. Vasco Urban Co-operative Credit Socie ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal, Goa in Miscellaneous Application No. 7/2015. By the impugned order, the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal has refused to condone the delay of 108 days in filing an appeal challenging the judgment and the award dated 16.12.2013 passed by the Registrar's Nominee of the Co-operative Societies, South Goa in Misfeasance Case No. 1-204-2012/TS/RCS/VUCCSI/509. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner no. 1 is working as Clerk with the respondent-Cooperative Credit Society, while the petitioner no. 2, who is the wife of petitioner no. 1 is working as a agent for collecting pigmy deposits for the said Co-operative Credit Society. The aforesaid misfeasance proceedings were started against the petitioners on the file of the Re...
Tag this Judgment!National Securities Clearing Corporation Ltd. Vs. Prime Broking Compan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
1. This Company Petition seeks winding up of the Respondent Company- Prime Broking Company (India) Ltd on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent Company is indebted to the Petitioner in the sum of Rs. 103.73 Crores as on 8th April, 2014 along with interest @12% per annum till payment and/or realization. Out of this, according to the Petitioner, an amount of Rs.90.90 crores is admitted as due and payable by the Respondent Company to the Petitioner. The obligation of the Respondent Company arises out of various trades executed by the Respondent Company on the platform of National Stock Exchange of India Limited. Since the Respondent Company failed to make payment to the counter parties, the Petitioner had to pay the said counter parties out of its income-cum-profit and earnings, for and on behalf of the Respondent Company, and therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to recover the same from the Respondent Company. 2. The brief fa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »